Can a created being have free will?

[Prodigal_Son]

And if our choice is only possible if it is allowed by God (His sacrifice, in your view) then how is it actually a free choice? It’s just like the parameters of the hypothetical AI, which can make the sorts of choices it was designed for, but not ones the programmer didn’t write in, or maybe specifically made impossible (like cause no purposeful harm to living things or something).

I don’t follow this. It seems to me that a choice within parameters is still a choice. If you mean by “free will” the capacity to do absolutely anything at our whim, then obviously we don’t have free will. I couldn’t freely choose to fly like Superman, because I don’t have the potential to do so – that is, it isn’t in my parameters.

By “free will”, I mean the capacity to make certain choices that are not causally necessitated by prior events. If my father gives me a choice of chocolate or vanilla ice cream, the fact that strawberry was not an option does not make it any less a choice.

Because the kind of free will Christians mean is contra-causal free will (i.e. contrary to the laws of physics that govern all of nature, if you don’t believe in contra-causal free will, then you’d be either a determinist if you view the brain as too big to be subject to quantum randomness, or have elements of randomness which is no more free than determinism. There would be no room for true freedom that religious people generally talk about.)

Two points here:

1. We cannot prove that the laws of physics govern all of nature. (See David Hume on this point).
2. Even assuming that the laws of physics govern all of nature, this does not get us determinism. For it is not evident that human choices are a *part *of nature – if, by “nature”, you mean the physical universe.

 

[greylorn]

I dont know if its “correct” to view the spirit as separate from the body, but if it is then I think there are no theoretical limits to its freedom, only physical limits demarctaed by the size of our brains. I think it is the spirit which runs the consciousness.
Now I dont know how God created the spirit, perhaps it just eminates from Him, and is like God in a way, being a primordial force.

Still, you assume, following dogma, that God created the spirit. If so, the OP argument applies. If created, the “spirit” could be just another AI machine.

It would make no difference if God created a dozen spirits for every body, or none whatsoever.

I propose that the only possible way an entity of any sort can have free will if is if it is not created. For your amusement, you may want to check out the 2nd Genesis story, in which nothing is said about the creation of the soul. rather, that “God breathed into man the breath of life,” (or something like that). I’m told that this is the North Babylon creation story, whereas the first is from South Babylon, but so what?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I personally don’t think we have the kind of free will you’re talking about. I think our minds are the product of brain activity, and brain activity obeys the laws of physics. There doesn’t seem to be room for contra causal free will there.

But I still think I make choices, in the sense that I am a system that responds to internal and external factors.

But I think this distracts from the OP, who seems to be asking if God’s omniscience is compatible with free will. I’m not certain on that point. It seems very paradoxical to think that God can know everything we’ll ever do, and at the same time we would be freely choosing to do what we will do.

The obvious paradox is that if God told us “tomorrow you will go for a walk, I know this from my omniscience”, if you were truly free you should be able to decide not to go for a walk, and contradict God’s omniscience.

The counterargument is that you’re able to decide, but you choose not to, and God knows you’ll make that choice. But there seems to be something wrong with this reasoning and I can’t quite put my finger on it.

The fallacy in your argument here is “If God told us …”. The reality is that God doesn’t tell us, or not usually. He merely watches what we do (most of the time) and thus sees what we decide to do. He’s not bound by time as we are, and can literally see the future.

If God told us we’ll do something, then we would probably make a point of determining never to do it and thus negate His comment.

However from time to time He does tell us, but in my experience it’s either been via a visionary experience, or through another person. For example, at one stage my old Protestant pastor commented to me in his office, “I think you’ll be doing some cleaning. You won’t be doing it for long, but I think the Lord will just want you to hear about a ghost.”

Now I believe that God was telling him that. At the time, and even though I knew how accurate the old pastor was with his predictions, I thought it was ridiculous, and more or less disregarded it. Now that was probably in 1991, as he died in January 1992.

In 2006, frustrated with what I was doing at the time, I took up a cleaning position. I only did it for a few months (viz. I didn’t do it “for long”), but when I was being shown a particular building in Ipswich, west of Brisbane, the other bloke commented “This place is haunted”. It turned out that a former manager had committed suicide. The other cleaner didn’t like being there at night, and he said on one occasion, all the stock just jumped off one entire row of shelves and landed on the floor. I used to get positive vibes however and I think my role was to get a mass said for the bloke who committed suicide.

Now the point is that the old pastor could sit in his office in 1991 and tell me something that came to pass in 2006, and it was a rather unusual prediction at that. I suppose a sufficiently long time had gone that I didn’t give the prediction a thought, until after I’d been told the place “was haunted”. On that occasion then, God told me, via the pastor, what I would do.

So God could see down the track 15 years, and tell me what I would do, despite all my free will choices in the interim. But this was done via another person, namely the pastor.

The choices were mine. But He was able to tell me one specific consequence long in advance.

 

[greylorn]

Do atheists have free will?

Not if God created the component of them which makes choices.

At a less than philosophical level, it ought to be fairly apparent that very few people actually have free will. Psychological experiments often come up with a value of 3%. The rest are controlled by the beliefs and opinions of others, much like apes.

Most of those who call themselves Catholics, or Muslims, or whatever, were raised to believe their religion. Their brains were programmed by society. The same body-soul system named Joe Blow who was raised a Catholic, and is a Catholic, would be a Muslim if it was named Abdul Mohammed and raised in Iraq.

The data are well explained with the assumptions that the soul is not created, and is operative, now and then, in only 3% of human beings.

 

[flyingfish]

So you don’t believe you can do something without an external physical cause stimulus?

I don’t think it has to be external, it can come from within my own brain=mind. But I do think that my brain is entirely a part of this universe, and entirely subject to the laws of physics.

I don’t think the atoms my brain is made out of can decide not to follow the laws of physics.

Two points here:

1. We cannot prove that the laws of physics govern all of nature. (See David Hume on this point).
2. Even assuming that the laws of physics govern all of nature, this does not get us determinism. For it is not evident that human choices are a *part *of nature – if, by “nature”, you mean the physical universe.

That’s all true, but at the same there is nothing to suggest that the laws of physics don’t govern all of nature or that human minds are not a part of nature.

You’d have to believe on faith that there is an external soul that is the source of free will, and that it somehow overrides the laws of physics the brain is subject to when it interacts with it (because at this point you can’t deny that the brain plays an essential part in our thought processes).

so what if people were raised doing the exact same things? lets say they did everything together, and i mean everything.

could one not argue that they have the same conscious?

If two people had identical DNA, and were raised identically (not even one difference in anything) and the brain is a classical system not experiencing quantum randomness, then yes I would say they would be completely identical.

 

[greylorn]

To the prior, omniscience is “all knowingness”, if God is aware of all potentials, then he is aware in toto, his willingness to forgoe the actualisation of that belief down one path is his sacrifice for us to be free - an act nessecary if we are to take that his essence is both good and prior to his praxis.

To the latter; as we have never created GENERATIVE AI, the answer at the moment is no, as we have only created MANIPULATIVE AI. However, were we to create an AI that:
Had Generative intellection,
Had independent modes of volition and nolition,
Had no sound solicitation inbetween thus,
Then we would.

God can only be aware in toto of the intellection of mankind; but in quid, our essence of will is prior to our intellection and praxis; it is thus essential that his sacrifice of compulsion is made.

This entails the forgoing of one of two parties for God, in order not to actualise a contradiction; in nuce it is either this (free will) one, or that one (determination) – as God’s essence is in quale substantile good, and in quid prior to praxis.

After wading through those paragraphs of turgid, mindless, and unnecessarily Latinized obfuscation, I feel a great urge to hose down my boots. Is that free will, or what?

Is your modernized God-concept, which is decidedly different from traditional beliefs, approved by the Pope,or just something you made up? Is it indicative of the Church’s plan to follow Bishop Spong’s lead, to answer legitimate questions by resorting to pseudo-intellectual babble? Is there any basis for your assertions as to what God can know, or cannot?

Would you recognize “generative intellection” if you stepped in it?

 

[greylorn]

…

As to how free actions are possible, this is a problem for the atheist as well as the theist. We seem to have free will, but arguments claim to show otherwise. None of these arguments are demonstrably sound, however. Consider:

1. If God created every person, then God is the cause of every person’s actions. (Philosophical hypothetical)
2. God created every person. (Religious claim)
3. Therefore, God is the cause of all our actions.

This argument is problematic, because premise #1 is far from clear. In fact, believing premise #1 amounts to believing that God cannot create a free being. But then it seems that we are assuming exactly what we’re trying to prove!

The concept of “setting parameters” presupposes the concept of freedom. If something were determined in advance, it would be redundant to set parameters.

Good question, by the way.

You’ve done a good job of cutting to the central issue. Here is a solution to the philosophical dilemma.

1. Man is composed, in many instances, of a brain-body system which is also connected to the entity which religions call the “soul.” (Cartesian dualism.)
2. The brain makes most choices, according to its instincts and societal programming.
3. The soul can make choices, either by over-riding the brain’s choices when there is a conflict, or by operating in areas for which the brain has not been pre-programmed.
4. God did not create the soul. (It would have been silly of Him to do so.)

Therefore, the brain does not have free will, but the soul does— or at least has the rarely exercised potential to use it.

 

[Thing]

I don’t think it has to be external, it can come from within my own brain=mind. But I do think that my brain is entirely a part of this universe, and entirely subject to the laws of physics.

I don’t think the atoms my brain is made out of can decide not to follow the laws of physics.

.

But the laws of physics don’t know anything. They don’t set up any boundaries for thought or will in humans. Atoms in your brain allow for continuous infinite possibilities and your will allows you to poke them with your finger and say, ‘I’ll do this - no, I’ll do that’.

 

[flyingfish]

But the laws of physics don’t know anything. They don’t set up any boundaries for thought or will in humans. Atoms in your brain allow for continuous infinite possibilities and your will allows you to poke them with your finger and say, ‘I’ll do this - no, I’ll do that’.

Well, only if you assume that our minds aren’t made out of the stuff of nature, which I don’t believe. If our minds, which include our will, are made out of atoms themselves, then what we will is subject to how the atoms behave, which is in accordance with the laws of physics.

 

[Thing]

Well, only if you assume that our minds aren’t made out of the stuff of nature, which I don’t believe. If our minds, which include our will, are made out of atoms themselves, then what we will is subject to how the atoms behave, which is in accordance with the laws of physics.

Our minds use the atoms in our brains to select, for example, a train of thought. The atoms in our brains do not select themselves and dictate a thought to our minds.

 

[Andy_III]

To the prior, omniscience is “all knowingness”, if God is aware of all potentials, then he is aware in toto, his willingness to forgoe the actualisation of that belief down one path is his sacrifice for us to be free - an act nessecary if we are to take that his essence is both good and prior to his praxis.

This entails the forgoing of one of two parties for God, in order not to actualise a contradiction; in nuce it is either this (free will) one, or that one (determination) – as God’s essence is in quale substantile good, and in quid prior to praxis.

God does not need to predict what you will do to know what you will do. To Him, you have already done it. He is outside of time and hence sees all of time at once.

There is not necessarily a contradiction between determination and free will. Could you change your choice of what to eat yesterday for lunch? No. Does that mean you weren’t free to choose the lunch you wanted? No.

Does that make sense?

 

[Andy_III]

so what if people were raised doing the exact same things? lets say they did everything together, and i mean everything.

could one not argue that they have the same conscious?

No one can do the exact same things. One of the twins would be born first. Also, if they both reached for the same toy, only one would actually get the toy. Then one would have the toy and one wouldn’t. This would set up a different environment in each person.

 

[Andy_III]

Still, you assume, following dogma, that God created the spirit. If so, the OP argument applies. If created, the “spirit” could be just another AI machine.

It would make no difference if God created a dozen spirits for every body, or none whatsoever.

I propose that the only possible way an entity of any sort can have free will if is if it is not created. For your amusement, you may want to check out the 2nd Genesis story, in which nothing is said about the creation of the soul. rather, that “God breathed into man the breath of life,” (or something like that). I’m told that this is the North Babylon creation story, whereas the first is from South Babylon, but so what?

I fail to see the real difference in the two accounts. Different wording does not necessarily imply a different thing.

 

[Andy_III]

Not if God created the component of them which makes choices.

At a less than philosophical level, it ought to be fairly apparent that very few people actually have free will. Psychological experiments often come up with a value of 3%. The rest are controlled by the beliefs and opinions of others, much like apes.

Most of those who call themselves Catholics, or Muslims, or whatever, were raised to believe their religion. Their brains were programmed by society. The same body-soul system named Joe Blow who was raised a Catholic, and is a Catholic, would be a Muslim if it was named Abdul Mohammed and raised in Iraq.

The data are well explained with the assumptions that the soul is not created, and is operative, now and then, in only 3% of human beings.

Could you post a link please? Maybe the description of the experiment will help me understand what you mean by free will.

 

[Andy_III]

Sorry for the many posts in a row, I’m trying to catch up. This thread was started as a continuation of the discussion on a different thread. As near as I can tell, it started with this post:

And, if God is truly omniscient in the general sense I was taught as a Catholic (knowing all things, past, present, and future) he cannot create anything which has genuine free will-- which implies the power to think of something which God has not thought of.

and proceeded to intersperse that thread for roughly 200 posts. Apologies to the moderator, I should have started a new thread long ago. It is easy to be lazy. :doh2:

The discussion centered around Greylorn’s assertion that a created being cannot have free will.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That’s all true, but at the same there is nothing to suggest that the laws of physics don’t govern all of nature or that human minds are not a part of nature.

There’s nothing to suggest either way. That’s why we call it the mind/body problem. It is a metaphysical question and – like most metaphysical questions – there is no scientific evidence that applies to it.

You’d have to believe on faith that there is an external soul that is the source of free will, and that it somehow overrides the laws of physics the brain is subject to when it interacts with it (because at this point you can’t deny that the brain plays an essential part in our thought processes).

I **can **deny that the brain plays an essential role, although I’m actually agnostic on that point. The question: Does the brain control the mind or does the mind control the brain? If the former, then we have a determinism problem. If the latter, then brain activity is a parallel process.

Also, no “overriding the laws of physics” is necessary, if the laws of physics have been “rigged” by God to conform to our choices. Alternately, however, it might be that subatomic “indeterminacy” or some such thing is the medium through which immaterial decisions impact a material world.

So yes, I’d have to believe in a soul, but I don’t know what you mean by calling it “external” to the body. There is no soul (or will) without a body.

 

[avflf]

Going back to basics let’s consider a choice between two paths only. As written in (Deu 30:19) “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” and one is given a set of rules that will lead to “life” and another to “death” The concept of “omniscience” dictates that God knows before hand which path each individual will take but is it not up to the individual to first understand the implications of both paths and then decide which way to go, taking that foreknowledge does not mean coercion?

 

[flyingfish]

There’s nothing to suggest either way. That’s why we call it the mind/body problem. It is a metaphysical question and – like most metaphysical questions – there is no scientific evidence that applies to it.

Untrue, there are heaps of evidence connecting every conscious process with particular areas of the brain. The evidence piles higher and higher. Brain injuries, mental illnesses, memory loss, strokes that cause personality changes, mapping specific functions to specific brain areas. The list goes on and on.

I would count all these as evidence in favor of the mind = brain process theory.

Your only refuge against this overwhelming evidence is to claim that the brain only plays a mediating role between the soul and the body, and a person with a damaged brain loses their memory or loses their inhibitions because the soul loses the way it makes the mind. But that is an idea for which there is no evidence, and which doesn’t seem to be necessary.

Also, no “overriding the laws of physics” is necessary, if the laws of physics have been “rigged” by God to conform to our choices. Alternately, however, it might be that subatomic “indeterminacy” or some such thing is the medium through which immaterial decisions impact a material world.

Yes that is an interesting argument, that God always knew what we would choose and selected the laws of physics so that the actions of our physical bodies would conform exactly to our choices.

I think it’s pretty farfetched, but certainly logically possible.

But it brings you back to the OP’s original objection of whether God’s foreknowledge and our freedom can coexist. Personally I am not certain on that point.

I think it’s far more reasonable to believe that the brain generates the mind however, for that we have plenty of evidence.

 

[HelenaMT]

Untrue, there are heaps of evidence connecting every conscious process with particular areas of the brain. The evidence piles higher and higher. Brain injuries, mental illnesses, memory loss, strokes that cause personality changes, mapping specific functions to specific brain areas. The list goes on and on.

I would count all these as evidence in favor of the mind = brain process theory.

Your only refuge against this overwhelming evidence is to claim that the brain only plays a mediating role between the soul and the body, and a person with a damaged brain loses their memory or loses their inhibitions because the soul loses the way it makes the mind. But that is an idea for which there is no evidence, and which doesn’t seem to be necessary.

There is great evidence that when certain thoughts are occurring, parts of the brain are active (though it seems that each brain is somewhat different-most of these studies use averages of numerous brains to arrive at what areas are active) .

This doesn’t at all explain how thoughts are generated in the first place, or how our thoughts can affect what our bodies do-unlike breathing or blinking, our choice of thought can re-tool our brains-there’s evidence that people with OCD can change their neural networks by consciously choosing to re-direct their actions , until the damaging OCD paths become less intrusive and easier to manage.

There is also the placebo effect, where belief that a medical treatment is beneficial leads to it actually being beneficial, even when no actual treatment occurs (patients receive sugar pills, not drugs). This has been demonstrated not only with physical ailments but mental ones-there was a study done on some drug for severe depression years back-the brains of those who received the placebo and believed it was a great new breakthrough showed signs of recovery (I’m trying to find that study in case anyone was interested).

Unless you can point me to something that demonstrates the physical properties of a thought (seriously, because I’m looking for information), it’s hard to explain how something non-physical (not supernatural, just non-physical)can cause physical changes unless it has certain properties of it’s own.

This leads me to think of the idea of emergence: many say that the mind is what emerges from brain processes, like wetness emerges from the properties of water. However, wetness cannot be said to “act” on water. It’s just it’s by-product. If it could be said that thoughts were truly only by-products of brain activity, they should not have any effect back onto the brain, a physical organ. But there does seem to be evidence that “mind” can control matter to a certain degree, as in the above examples.

 

[HelenaMT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by greylorn
Not if God created the component of them which makes choices.

At a less than philosophical level, it ought to be fairly apparent that very few people actually have free will. Psychological experiments often come up with a value of 3%. The rest are controlled by the beliefs and opinions of others, much like apes.

Most of those who call themselves Catholics, or Muslims, or whatever, were raised to believe their religion. Their brains were programmed by society. The same body-soul system named Joe Blow who was raised a Catholic, and is a Catholic, would be a Muslim if it was named Abdul Mohammed and raised in Iraq.

The data are well explained with the assumptions that the soul is not created, and is operative, now and then, in only 3% of human beings.

Could you post a link please? Maybe the description of the experiment will help me understand what you mean by free will.

I think what he is saying (I could be wrong) is that it is extraordinarily hard to overcome cultural programming and the limits of one’s own knowledge and experience to perform an action (or even think a thought) that is in opposition to it. I guess examples would be a slave owner in the 19th century South who decided to become an abolitionist, or a Nazi guard who decides to help concentration camp inmates escape. Examples like that are either exceedingly rare or non-existent.